Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ANE-2] VanderKam 2nd ed. DSS Today (2010) on Sadducees

Expand Messages
  • RUSSELLGMIRKIN@aol.com
    VanderKam s analysis is based on an assumption that the Dead Sea Scrolls sectarian texts are homogeneous, when in fact we can recognize two distinct
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 6, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      VanderKam's analysis is based on an assumption that the Dead Sea Scrolls
      sectarian texts are homogeneous, when in fact we can recognize two distinct
      literatures. The correlations with the Essenes of Josephus are mainly
      restricted to the Serekh texts, notable 1QS (the Community Rule). The
      correlations with Sadducee halachah are found in the halachic legal texts, which
      represent a distinct corpus, and which are generally angel-free. 11QT (the
      Temple Scroll) is a good example of a Sadducee text which does not contain
      angels/fate.

      CD is the only scroll that combines both serekh and halachic materials, and
      these are in separate literary strata that show that the earlier Sadducee
      movement of the Teacher later came under the influence of the Serekh
      group.

      Best regards,
      Russell Gmirkin




      Is it not possible that the NT and Josephus are wrong and that the
      Sadducees
      believed in angels, etc, and that moreover that everyone believed in
      angels?
      Both the NT and Josephus had motives for claiming that they didn't believe
      in angels or the resurrection - Josephus so that he could have several
      different philosophies, and the NT for obvious reasons.

      Liz

      Lisbeth S. Fried, Ph.D.

      Visiting Scholar

      Department of Near Eastern Studies

      and the Frankel Center for Judaic Studies

      University of Michigan

      202 S. Thayer -- Room 4111

      Ann Arbor, MI 48104

      www.lizfried.www.<_http://www.lizfriedhttp:_ (http://www.lizfried.com/) >

      _____

      From: _ANE-2@..._ (mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com)
      [mailto:_ANE-2@..._ (mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com) ] On Behalf Of
      _goranson@..._ (mailto:goranson@...)
      Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:13 AM
      To: _ANE-2@..._ (mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com)
      Subject: [ANE-2] VanderKam 2nd ed. DSS Today (2010) on Sadducees

      Yesterday arrived the brand new second edition of James C. vanderKam, the
      Dead
      Sea Scrolls Today (Eerdmans, 2010). Even if you read the first edition, I
      recommend also reading the new edition. For a sample here are two
      paragraphs
      from a longer discussion of the proposal that Sadducees resided at Qumran
      (pages 120-121):

      "The Sadducees and the Essenes may well have agreed with one another on
      many
      laws or other points; they presumably did not disagree about everything.
      from a
      historical perspective, one would expect Sadducees and Essenes to share
      some
      views because both had deep priestly roots. The Qumran group may have been
      founded and led by priests who called themselves [though not the whole
      group--
      SG] sons of Zadok..., while the term _Sadducee_ seems to be derived from
      the
      name Zadok....Both parties opposed what they understood to be the Pharisaic
      tendency to soften some laws and to modify the related penalties. [p. 121]
      That
      is, one reason why they shared some legal views is that both were
      conservative
      on matters relating to the law.

      The nature of the data from the Mishnah...hardly matches the amount and
      character of the earlier information from Josephus, Pliny, and others that
      has
      led many to identify the Qumranites as Essenes. That Qumran views and those
      attributed to the Sadducees correspond for a few individual laws does not
      entail that the Qumran group was Sadducean in any sense in which that name
      is
      commonly employed today. After all, the Qumran manuscripts teach such
      prominent
      anti-Sadducean doctrines as the existence of multitudes of angels and the
      all-controlling power of fate. How could Sadducees develop such teachings,
      which are diametrically opposed to what ancient writers said about them?
      Also,
      the fact that an _early_ document such as the Cave 1 copy of the Rule of
      the
      Community...Community...<WBR>enunciates thoroughly Essene, anti-Sadducean
      most
      improbable that the Qumran residents arose from Sadducean origins. If they
      did,
      they succeeded in reversing themselves in fundamental theological tenets
      within
      a few years--from nonpredestinarians to all-out determinists, to name just
      one
      example. Such a scenario is thoroughly implausible.e

      best,
      Stephen Goranson






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.